green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
25.2 score
“it is not the function of the court at this time to determine whether dr. beyer is correct. the weight of to be given and its effect is for the fact finder in assessing the merits of plaintiffs' claims at a later date.”
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 36 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Kerwin v. Remittance Assistance Corp.
But see United States v. Dimitt, 137 F.R.D. 677 , 677 (D.Kan.1991) (holding pro se defendant’s failure to appear at a pretrial conference did not warrant the sanction of dismissal where there may have been grounds for reasonable mistake).
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Wright v. Honeywell International, Inc.
(5×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see, e.g."
proof of 'impact' is not only essential to demonstrating defendants' liability under the antitrust laws, it is also the key element in determining whether common issues will predominate.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Livengood Feeds, Inc. v. Kgaa
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
it is not the function of the court at this time to determine whether dr. beyer is correct. the weight of to be given and its effect is for the fact finder in assessing the merits of plaintiffs' claims at a later date.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation
(6×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
resolution of whether the alleged conspiracy presents common questions capable of common proof depends upon ... defendants' challenged behavior: what defendants said or did.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fruitstone v. Spartan Race Inc.
Antitrust Litig., 137 F.R.D. 677, 698 (N.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Seaberg v. Atlas Roofing Corp.
Antitrust Litigation, 137 F.R.D. 677, 693 (N.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation
In this case, Plaintiffs cite the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia’s decision in In re Domestic Air Transportation Antitrust Litigation in support of their assertion that they have sufficiently pled a conspiracy affecting the air passenger transportation services within the United States. 137 F.R.D. 677, 687-88 (N.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Delta/Airtran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litigation
In Domestic Air Transportation, 137 F.R.D. at 696, the court certified a class of ticket purchasers and rejected the defendants' argument that their records allowed only for the identification of passengers, not purchasers.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation
Antitrust Litig., 137 F.R.D. 677, 698 (N.D.Ga. 1991) (citing 3 Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions, § 18.03 at 455 (1985)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Columbus Drywall & Insulation, Inc. v. Masco Corp.
(2×)
State of Ala. v. Blue Bird Body Co. Inc., 573 F.2d 309, 316 (5th Cir.1978); In re Tri-State Crematory Litig., 215 F.R.D. 660, 691 (N.D.Ga.2003); In re Domestic Air, 137 F.R.D. at 684.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Romero v. Philip Morris Incorporated
In re Potash, 159 F.R.D. at 697 ; see also In re Catfish, 826 F.Supp. at 1042 (“Whether or not [the expert] is correct in his assessment of common impact/injury is for the trier of fact to decide at the proper time.”); In re Domestic Air, 137 F.R.D. at 692 (stating the “[t]he weight to be given [the expert’s] testimony and its effect is for the fact finder in assessing the merits of plaintiffs’ claims at a later date”). {49} Despite the need in many cases to postpone critical analysis of an expert’s methodologies, in assessing whether the certification requirements are met and in…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation
Antitrust Litig., 137 F.R.D. at 696).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Earnest v. Amoco Oil Co.
Antitrust Litig., 137 F.R.D. at 692; see also In Re Polypropylene Carpet Antitrust Litig., 996 F.Supp. 18, 22 (N.D.Ga.1997).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Tri-State Crematory Litigation
(3×)
Consistent with Eleventh Circuit authority, the Court will “scrutinize the evidence plaintiffs propose to use in proving their claims without unnecessarily reaching the merits of the underlying claims.” Domestic Air, 137 F.R.D. at 684; Telecomm Technical Serv., Inc. v. Siemens Rolm Communications, Inc., 172 F.R.D. 532, 542-43 (N.D.Ga.1997) (“[Rule 23] analysis often mandates that the Court look to the law and facts which comprise the plaintiffs’ class action claims”).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Rhodes v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.
(3×)
Consistent with Eleventh Circuit authority, the Court will “scrutinize the evidence plaintiffs propose to use in proving their claims without unnecessarily reaching the merits of the underlying claims.” Domestic Air, 137 F.R.D. at 684; Telecomm Technical Serv., Inc. v. Siemens Rolm Communications, Inc., 172 F.R.D. 532, 542-43 (N.D.Ga.1997) (“[Rule 23] analysis often mandates that the Court look to the law and facts which comprise the plaintiffs’ class action claims”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re South Dakota Microsoft Antitrust Litigation
(2×)
Catfish, 826 F.Supp. at 1042-43 , In Re Potash Litig., 159 F.R.D. 682, 697 (D.Minn.1995); In re Domestic Air Transportation Anti-trust Litigation, 137 F.R.D. 677, 692 (N.D.Ga. 1991); In re Indus.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Northwest Airlines Corp.
(4×)
Antitrust Litigation, 137 F.R.D. at 683.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Deloach v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
(7×)
also: Cited "see"
Similarly, the defendants in Domestic Air, 137 F.R.D. at 685, “insisted] that differing competitive conditions and varying pricing structures at each hub and between individual city pairs mean that even if plaintiffs had some evidence of a conspiracy to fix ticket prices on one route, such evidence would not amount to common proof of a nationwide conspiracy.” 12 In Corrugated Container, 80 F.R.D. at 250 , the court noted that the Supreme Court already had foreclosed any argument that corrugated containers were non-fungible, despite the fact that “containers vary as to dimensions, weight,…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Theragenics Corp. Securities Litigation
(4×)
“Impracticable” is not synonymous with “impossible,” and the Plaintiffs “need only show that it would be extremely difficult or inconvenient to join all members of the class.” Miller Industries, 186 F.R.D. at 685 ; Domestic Air, 137 F.R.D. at 698.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lopez v. City of Santa Fe
Antitrust Litig., 137 F.R.D. 677, 698 (N.D.Ga. 1991) (quoting 3 Newburg on Class Actions § 18.09, at 464).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Melnick v. Microsoft Corp.
Proof of impact is the “key element in determining whether common issues will predominate.” Karofsky at 22 (quoting In re Domestic Air Transp., No. 90-CV- 2485-MHS, 137 F.R.D. 677, 689 (N.D.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation
(4×)
Antitrust Litig., 137 F.R.D. at 689; Midwestern Mach. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., No. 97-1438, slip op. at 6-9, 16-19 (D.Minn.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation
(4×)
Antitrust Litig., 137 F.R.D. at 684. (iii) Defendants’ Arguments Are Not Persuasive Defendants’ arguments to the contrary are unavailing.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sebo v. Rubenstein
(2×)
In Domestic Air Transportation, which defendants cite as support for their argument that commonality cannot exist on the element of injury, the court actually found that common issues did predominate over individualized ones, despite the variety of factors influencing airfare prices and the highly individualized question of damages. 137 F.R.D. at 690.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Miller Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation
(4×)
“Impracticable” is not synonymous with “impossible,” and the Plaintiffs “need only show that it would be extremely difficult or inconvenient to join all members of the class.” Domestic Air, 137 F.R.D. at 698.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Anderson v. Garner
(3×)
Domestic Air, 137 F.R.D. at 684 (at class certification stage, the court “scrutinize[s] the evidence plaintiffs propose to use in proving their claims without unnecessarily reaching the merits of the underlying claims”).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Polypropylene Carpet Antitrust Litigation
(3×)
Domestic Air, 137 F.R.D. at 692.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Polypropylene Carpet Antitrust Litigation
(31×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Domestic Air, 137 F.R.D. at 691-93; Telecomm Technical, 172 F.R.D. at 543.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lumco Industries, Inc. v. Jeld-Wen, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Courts have held that “it is incumbent upon defendants to substantiate that criticism” of proposed methodologies for calculating damages by producing “empirical evidence.” In re Domestic Air Transportation Antitrust Litigation, 137 F.R.D. at 690.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Nasdaq Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See, e.g., Greenhaw, 721 F.2d at 1024-25; In re Domestic Air Transp., 137 F.R.D. at 692-93; In re Potash, 159 F.R.D. at 698 (noting the possibility of using the defendants’ transactional records to compute individual damages); In re Antibiotic Antitrust Actions, 333 F.Supp. 278, 281 (S.D.N.Y.1971) (court allowed plaintiffs to establish an aggregate quantum of class-wide damages, but provided that individual class members would have to file claim to justify their entitlement to receive a portion of this sum); In re Melridge, Inc. Securities Litigation, 837 F.Supp. 1076, 1080 (D.Or.1993) (cour…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Industrial Diamonds Antitrust Litigation
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
On a motion for class certification, “[plaintiffs’ burden is to establish that common or ‘generalized proof will predominate at trial with respect to these three essential , elements of their antitrust claim.” Domestic Air, 137 F.R.D. at 685.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Domestic Air Transportation Antitrust Litigation
(2×)
Litig., 137 F.R.D. 677, 692 (N.D.Ga. 1991).
examined
Cited "see"
In Re Catfish Antitrust Litigation
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See In re Domestic Air Transp., 137 F.R.D. 677 , 699 (N.D.Ga.1991) (named plaintiffs’ claims stem from same legal theory as class claims notwithstanding that class members purchased tickets at different prices and according to varying conditions); In re Wirebound Boxes Antitrust Litig., 128 F.R.D. 268, 270 (D.Minn.1989) (where representatives had to prove existence, scope, and impact of alleged nationwide conspiracy, such claims were sufficiently typical of entire class); United Nat.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation
See, e.g., In re Domestic Air, 137 F.R.D. at 692-93 (“It is not the function of the Court at this time to determine whether [the expert] is correct.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation
(2×)
See, e.g., In re Domestic Air Transportation Antitrust Litigation, 137 F.R.D. 677 (N.D.Ga. 1991) (certifying class of approximately 12.5 million airline ticket purchasers).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Prudential Securities Inc.
See, e.g., In re Domestic Air Transportation Antitrust Lit., 137 F.R.D. 677 , 694 (N.D.Ga.1991) (certified class consisting of all domestic airline passengers since January 1,1988 on several major carriers, i.e. at least 12.5 million people).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Terry DIMITT
v.
Terry DIMITT
Civ. A. No. 90-1417-T.
District Court, D. Kansas.
Aug 9, 1991.
Theis.
Published
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
THEIS, District Judge.This matter is before the court on the United States’ motion for entry of judgment (Doc. 29). The United States seeks judgment in its favor pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 16(f) and 55 and D.Kan. Rule 213(d) as a sanction for the defendants’ failure to appear at the final pretrial conference scheduled for August 2, 1991.
The court record indicates that Magistrate Reid set the final pretrial conference for August 2, 1991 in a scheduling order entered February 8, 1991. Doc. 19. The defendants filed a motion to continue the pretrial conference on July 29, 1991. Doc. 25. Magistrate Reid denied the motion to continue in an order entered July 29, 1991. Doc. 26. The defendants filed a motion to compel and stay the pretrial conference on August 1, 1991. Doc. 27. The pretrial conference was apparently held on August 2, 1991 without the participation of the defendants.
The court will deny the United States’ motion for entry of judgment. The court does not believe that the sanction of default judgment is appropriate at this time. The defendants had filed a motion for continuance. The defendants, who are proceeding pro se, may have believed that the motion relieved them of their responsibility of attending the pretrial conference. The Magistrate is hereby instructed to reschedule the pretrial conference. The court would entertain another motion for entry of judgment if the defendants again fail to appear at any scheduled pretrial conference.
IT IS BY THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERED that the United States’ motion for entry of judgment (Doc. 29) is hereby denied without prejudice.